JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. 1. By order dated 6th January, 2016, the trial Court declined the application of the plaintiff-appellant for grant of Temporary Injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which has been assailed in the instant misc. appeal. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff-appellant instituted suit proceedings stating that he is owner of the subject land involved herein bearing Khasra No. 232, 232/427 and 232/428, situated at Mukabarkbag, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff-appellant that the subject land involved herein is recorded in the settlement Department of the Government, Nagar Nigam as well as in the office of the Collector, in the name of Goru Nisa d/o Ashfaq Hussain. Goru Nisa constructed a Bunglow in Khasra No. 231, with necessary infrastructure including servant quarters, Garage, Garden, Guest house etc.; known as "Mubarak Mahal". It is further pleaded that Goru Nisa made a 'Will' of her entire property on 13th October, 1962, in favour of her brother Aziz Hussain. Goru Nisa died in 1964 in Jaipur. Thus, Aziz Hussain, became the sole owner of the property. Aziz Hussain made a Will on 1st September, 1986, in favour his elder son Abid Hussain. Aziz Hussain died on 24th July, 1987, in Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, submits that the appellant learned about the sale-deeds executed with reference to the subject land involved herein in the year 1948 and 1975 only, in view of the application that was instituted by Smt. Salra Chaudhary (Defendant-Respondent No. 3) on 6th June, 2012. After an inspection of the relevant records i.e. File No. 60/2012 (State v. Abid Hussain) in the Court of Civil Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on 18th September, 2015, the plaintiff-appellant learned about the false, forged and fictitious sale deeds aforesaid. Thus, having learned about the facts aforesaid, the plaintiff-appellant instituted suit proceedings, with a prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 15th January, 1948 and 2nd December, 1975. 4. Learned counsel would further urge that the application for grant of Temporary Injunction has been declined without application of mind and in ignorance of the materials available on record. Thus, having learned about the facts aforesaid, the plaintiff-appellant instituted suit proceedings, with a prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 15th January, 1948 and 2nd December, 1975. 4. Learned counsel would further urge that the application for grant of Temporary Injunction has been declined without application of mind and in ignorance of the materials available on record. Further, the trial Court completely lost site of the fact that the plaintiff-appellant learned about the execution of the sale deeds of the year 1948 and 1975 only in the year 2015. Therefore, the application for grant of Temporary Injunction ought not to have been declined on the ground of delay which no doubt is more than six decades. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned order dated 6th January, 2016, declining the application for grant of Temporary Injunction so also gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 6. Indisputably, the trial Court, while examining the application of the plaintiff-appellant for grant of Temporary Injunction in the backdrop of the well settled principles i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, recorded a finding in negative as to existence of any prima facie case. 7. According to the learned counsel, the registered sale-deeds executed in the year 1948 and 1975, are forged documents. But, admittedly, no proceedings, under Criminal Law, have been instituted for those alleged sale-deeds of the year 1948 and 1975, being forged documents. The trial Court also considered the series of documents spread over six decades, which was brought on record by the non-applicants, while resisting the application for grant of Temporary Injunction. Prima facie, the non-applicant was successful in impressing upon the trial Court of her possession on the subject land involved herein. Thus, the factum of possession on the property in dispute was found against the plaintiff appellant. 8. Prima facie, the non-applicant was successful in impressing upon the trial Court of her possession on the subject land involved herein. Thus, the factum of possession on the property in dispute was found against the plaintiff appellant. 8. For the discussions and reasons aforesaid as well as in view of the findings arrived at by the Court below supported with reasonings while arriving at prima facie opinion as to nonexistence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-appellant with reference to the subject land involved herein and the registered sale deeds executed in the year 1948 and 1975; this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings cannot be faulted in absence of any substantial material available on record; to the contrary. 9. The Civil Misc. Appeal is devoid of any substance and lacks in merits, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 10. Ordered accordingly. 11. Stay application also stands closed.